R.I.P. Peter Matthiessen

Sunday

Apr 6, 2014 at 11:15 AMApr 6, 2014 at 2:25 PM

It seems really weird to think that before Peter Matthiessen, it wasn’t typical to think of human beings as being part of the web of life. Ecologists and environmentalists either were perplexed as to where humanity fit in the general scheme of things, or ignored the issue, or just plain blamed human beings for all of the ills of the planet. In the 1970s, Matthiessen was instrumental in pioneering the odd idea that people and animals were co-equals, not some master race given custody of the animal world to protect and defend. Much like Edward Abbey, he was an environmentalist who recognized that protecting the environment for the sake of people was just as important as claiming to protect the environment for the sake of whales. At a time when Greenpeace started to sound like screechy paternalistic naggers, an older generation of environmentalists was telling us that the whale was the canary in the coal mine for us, as well as something that we had no right to destroy. Lyrical in both fiction and non-fiction, Matthiessen, who I heard speak a few times, drew a stark line between conservationists and environmentalists, and the contrast he implied, was more one of politics and self righteousness than substance. As Edward Abbey said, environmentalists were nanny-inspired conservationists. Republicans who care about the earth are conservationists. Environmentalists who care about the earth mostly big governments Democrats who care mostly about themselves and who worry that global warming will impede their welfare payments. Reading Matthiessen, one would assume he would agree.

I’m told by folks under 30 that they find Matthiessen unreadable, that he is terse, dated and dry. I remember reading Matthiessen when I was about 12, and I could never put his books down. I always found it depressing to finish one of his books, distressed that there were no more pages. I don’t know why he doesn’t translate well today. But I also wonder who does. I hope it isn’t J.K. Rowling.

But equally, I find the idea that there won’t be any more books from Peter Matthiessen depressing and sad. His death this week was a serious loss not only for fans of his books, but also for fans of serious books who liked their authors to think big thoughts and to dig deep to fulfill profound curiosities. As the giants pass from the earth, are others rising to take their place?

Rob Meltzer

It seems really weird to think that before Peter Matthiessen, it wasn’t typical to think of human beings as being part of the web of life. Ecologists and environmentalists either were perplexed as to where humanity fit in the general scheme of things, or ignored the issue, or just plain blamed human beings for all of the ills of the planet. In the 1970s, Matthiessen was instrumental in pioneering the odd idea that people and animals were co-equals, not some master race given custody of the animal world to protect and defend. Much like Edward Abbey, he was an environmentalist who recognized that protecting the environment for the sake of people was just as important as claiming to protect the environment for the sake of whales. At a time when Greenpeace started to sound like screechy paternalistic naggers, an older generation of environmentalists was telling us that the whale was the canary in the coal mine for us, as well as something that we had no right to destroy. Lyrical in both fiction and non-fiction, Matthiessen, who I heard speak a few times, drew a stark line between conservationists and environmentalists, and the contrast he implied, was more one of politics and self righteousness than substance. As Edward Abbey said, environmentalists were nanny-inspired conservationists. Republicans who care about the earth are conservationists. Environmentalists who care about the earth mostly big governments Democrats who care mostly about themselves and who worry that global warming will impede their welfare payments. Reading Matthiessen, one would assume he would agree.

I’m told by folks under 30 that they find Matthiessen unreadable, that he is terse, dated and dry. I remember reading Matthiessen when I was about 12, and I could never put his books down. I always found it depressing to finish one of his books, distressed that there were no more pages. I don’t know why he doesn’t translate well today. But I also wonder who does. I hope it isn’t J.K. Rowling.

But equally, I find the idea that there won’t be any more books from Peter Matthiessen depressing and sad. His death this week was a serious loss not only for fans of his books, but also for fans of serious books who liked their authors to think big thoughts and to dig deep to fulfill profound curiosities. As the giants pass from the earth, are others rising to take their place?

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.